Cyberbullying. The impact on empathy levels, quality of friendships and coping styles among teenagers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of empathy, quality of friendships and coping styles on cyberbullying among teenagers. It utilised quantitative comparative correlational non-experimental design, using an anonymous self report questionnaire comprised of; The Cyberbullying Questionnaire (Sticca, Ruggieri, Alsaker and Perren, 2013), Coping with Cyberbullying Questionnaire (Sticca et al., 2015), The McGill Friendship Scale-Respondents Affection (MFQ-RA, 1999) (Mendelson and Aboud, 2012), and The Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe and Farrington, 2006) which was administered to 198 second year students. Insignificant results indicated no relationship between empathy and cyberbullying and cybervictimisation and quality of friendships. Students with higher empathy levels experienced higher quality of friendships. Cybervictims engaged in retaliation and helplessness/self blame. A relationship was discovered between quality of friendships and close support but not with technical coping, distal advice or assertiveness. Results and implications of the findings are discussed within. Author keywords: Cyberbullying, empathy, copying styles, quality of friendships
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".